In the past I don't compare different RAWs from different camera systems.Now I will compare this.Is there a reference available in which way I should analyse the technic quality of three systems?

a) Hasselblad 503CW+PhaseOne P45b) Sony A7IIc) Fuji GFX 50S

Looking quality in shadows?Looking quality in lights?Some other analysing?

I have all three different RAW formats open in PS CC.Is it sensefull to convert the RAWs from Sony A7II and Fuji GFX 50S (maybe the PO format) in DNG?Than I can open the Sony A7II and Fuji GFX 50S RAWs (maybe the PO format) in Capture One.

Put $10,000 on the table and we can get into the finer details. The best RAW may come from a camera that can't take the shot you want, due to any number of variables like AF performance, lens and focal length options, all the way to storage constraints or impracticalities in size & weight.

There is no perfect camera, or perfect RAW. Comparing CCD and CMOS chips as a starting point and there are too many apples to oranges comparisons.

Grab a copy of http://rawtherapee.com/ and see how different the RAW processors can be - and understand going from one native RAW to a DNG involved processing the file, there for it isn't a raw anymore.

Decades ago I started photography. First a 35 mm camera, then a medium format camera. Last large format camera. I made some good prints.I didn't do anything for a long time. Now I started to photograph with digital cameras. Now I notice that I cannot judge the technical quality and differences of my photos on the computer at the moment. That's my problem right now.In this respect I am looking for clues on how I can make progress.

Decades ago I started photography. First a 35 mm camera, then a medium format camera. Last large format camera. I made some good prints.I didn't do anything for a long time. Now I started to photograph with digital cameras. Now I notice that I cannot judge the technical quality and differences of my photos on the computer at the moment. That's my problem right now.In this respect I am looking for clues on how I can make progress.

Now I started to photograph with digital cameras. Now I notice that I cannot judge the technical quality and differences of my photos on the computer at the moment. That's my problem right now.In this respect I am looking for clues on how I can make progress.

Being constructive, I would say that's because all of the systems on your list are extremely capable in a very wide range of shooting situations.

More so than in the days of film, in my opinion. There's just not so much difference between even an APS-C sensor and a "mini" medium format sensor. It's not like 35mm vs. large format from film days.

I'd say if you can't judge the quality and differences on your computer and you intend to look at the photographs you take on your computer, all of these systems will do just fine for you. Indeed, you might even find that a micro 43 or a cheap Canon dSLR would do the job for you today.

If you can't tell on screen, maybe you can tell in prints- as Jim suggests, make some and see. Especially if print will be your final output destination for any significant fraction of your work.

Looking at the RAW files will tell you nothing about how the camera will perform for your photographic tasks, for your workflow, for the subjects you shoot, in the lighting conditions you shoot in, for the RAW processor you favour and the look you are trying to achieve.

Hire each system for a day and try them out. It's by far the best way to figure out which system works for you. A day's rental is peanuts compared with investment in a new system, especially if you're going to be buying a bunch of top-flight lenses.

Try processing the files from those shoot days yourself, the way you're going to be doing it if you buy one, and see what you think of results. Weigh that against what you thought of the shooting ergonomics, the shooting envelope (how capable the system was in the range of shooting situations you usually favour), and not least the price.

In many ways I'd say the choice of RAW processor is as important as the choice of sensor. I personally find it much easier to get results I like in Capture One, Phocus and Aperture than in Lightroom or DXO; you might find the opposite.

If you do a lot of shooting in remote locations, you might find that the startling weight advantage, long battery life and general robustness makes the Panasonics or Olympus micro four thirds options viable. I have printed them to 36"x24" but I can tell the difference between those and a full frame Sony A7RII/III. So much so that I never take the Panasonic into the mountains any more. But printing to smaller sizes they're just fine.

If you always shoot near the car or in the studio, and like the methodical and slow way of shooting, maybe the Hasselblad/Phase is more your style. Then again, the focussing capabilities of a Canon 1DX Mark II or eye focus on a Sony are almost supernatural- if that's important, you owe it to yourself to try them out.

This to me is a strange question. I don't know about the P45 but the P45+ was announced in Jan 2007, so it is at least 10 years old coupled to a camera that dates to the moon landings. Then you compare that to a 35mm camera and a modern medium format. The raw processing you want to do in Photoshop rather than the camera manufacturers raw processor or convert it to DNG which removes some of the proprietary information anyway. I think that you will a long way from "best" whatever that is.

I think the body of cameras are not so relevant for quality.Relevant for the quality are the lenses, then the sensor.You agree?

Jochen

No, I donít agree with that. Well, technically I do, but practically I donít. For the cameras youíve listed, it is better to think of them as film-based cameras of different formats with identical film loaded. As Hywel and others have tried to point out, the differences in sensors will be subtle compared to the format, haptics and ďgestaltĒ each system has. Those variables will impact the success and quality of your photos orders of magnitude more than sensor differences. Which system fits your subject(s) of interest and shooting style best?

Trying to compare raw files from different formats for the purpose of this camera choice is fraught with pitfalls and largely unnecessary.

At small print size, like 16"x23" I couldn't tell 24 MP and 39 MP apart.

The Hassy doesn't have AF and no live view. Are you sure you can focus it accurately? Just to say, I have a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back

If you plan to print large, I would go with the Fuji GFX or the Sony A7rIII

I have the Sony A7II, it doesn't have a very good AF. I would go with an A7rII, A7rIII or an A7III instead.

I would think all the mentioned cameras can produce excellent images.

The Fuji GFX is probably the best of the bunch.

Do consider your needs. The Hassy V + P45+ combo is a bit aged. Modern sensors have cleaner darks. The Distagons I had were not very sharp and all the Hassy lenses may be more prone to flare than many modern lenses.

If you shoot flash outdoors, there are use cases where a leaf shutter can be important.

The P45+ on the the Hassy V needs a sync cord from the lens to the back. That is a major cause of missed pictures.

I have and use A7rII, A7II and Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+. My main camera is the A7rII.

In the past I don't compare different RAWs from different camera systems.Now I will compare this.Is there a reference available in which way I should analyse the technic quality of three systems?

a) Hasselblad 503CW+PhaseOne P45b) Sony A7IIc) Fuji GFX 50S

Looking quality in shadows?Looking quality in lights?Some other analysing?

I have all three different RAW formats open in PS CC.Is it sensefull to convert the RAWs from Sony A7II and Fuji GFX 50S (maybe the PO format) in DNG?Than I can open the Sony A7II and Fuji GFX 50S RAWs (maybe the PO format) in Capture One.

At small print size, like 16"x23" I couldn't tell 24 MP and 39 MP apart.

The Hassy doesn't have AF and no live view. Are you sure you can focus it accurately? Just to say, I have a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back

If you plan to print large, I would go with the Fuji GFX or the Sony A7rIII

I have the Sony A7II, it doesn't have a very good AF. I would go with an A7rII, A7rIII or an A7III instead.

I would think all the mentioned cameras can produce excellent images.

The Fuji GFX is probably the best of the bunch.

Do consider your needs. The Hassy V + P45+ combo is a bit aged. Modern sensors have cleaner darks. The Distagons I had were not very sharp and all the Hassy lenses may be more prone to flare than many modern lenses.

If you shoot flash outdoors, there are use cases where a leaf shutter can be important.

The P45+ on the the Hassy V needs a sync cord from the lens to the back. That is a major cause of missed pictures.

I have and use A7rII, A7II and Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+. My main camera is the A7rII.

Best regardsErik

@Erik.

Thanks for Your feedback.(I have a P45 not a P45+)Meanwhile I could test a PhaseOne system on two weekends.This does not make the decision any easier.

Why not just go for the cheapest and easiest camera to use unless you yourself find one of the others can do something you want that the others cannot and reckon the disadvantages you have to put up with to get that are worthwhile?